Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of the Matter and the Coloring-In Trick

This point is THE critical one. It was the first point raised in the Skeptics Handbook, developed in the Second Handbook; the point that Dr Glikson had no reply to; the point that tripped up Will Steffen, Deltoid, and John Cook.As a modeler there was the moment in August 2007 when David saw the graphs below and said, emphatically: This is it. It’s over for the climate models. –JN

The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating

Dr. David Evans
19 October 2010

[A series of articles reviewing the western climate establishment and the media. The first and second discussed air temperatures, the third was on ocean temperatures, and fourth discussed past temperatures, the fifth compared the alleged cause (human CO2 emissions) with the alleged effect (temperatures), the sixth canvassed the infamous attempt to “fix” that disconnect, the hockey stick, and the seventh pointed out that the Chinese, Russian, and Indian climate establishments (which are financially independent of the western climate establishment) disagree with the western climate establishment about the cause of recent global warming and the eighth argued that hiring and firing policies and other government incentives created the consensus among western climate scientist that global warming is man-made.]

They Neglect To Mention That Evidence For One Link of their Theory Is Missing

The argument for man-made global warming consists of three links :

We humans are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by our emissions.

Increasing CO2 levels causes the temperature at the surface of the earth to rise, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is the “direct” warming effect of the extra CO2.

The earth responds to the direct warming in many ways, called “feedbacks”. The feedbacks warm the earth further, amplifying the direct warming about threefold.

All three links must be true for the theory to be valid; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

There is ample evidence for the first two links, and they are rarely disputed. The third link is where the dispute lies. In the establishment’s climate models, this amplifying feedback provides about two-thirds of the projected warming—without it there is only mild warming due to human emissions and no cause for climate alarm. There is no evidence for this amplifying feedback, but it is built into the climate models. When skeptic scientists say “there is no evidence” for man-made global warming, they are generally referring to the lack of evidence for these amplifying feedbacks.

[Some in the establishment would say there is evidence: They assume that all the warming since 1700 is due to rising CO2 levels (except for a small increase in the sun’s light output). We know the amount of extra CO2 over that period (link 1), how much extra direct warming that causes (link 2), and how much extra warming actually occurred (Figure17)—so we can calculate the required effect of the feedbacks (link 3) to make that happen, which turns out to be threefold amplification. But this just replaces the threefold amplification assumption with the assumption that only rising CO2 levels caused the warming. It’s still, at base, just an assumption without evidence—because there is (and can be) no evidence that there were no other forces that could have caused the global warming.

The climate establishment also argues, in other contexts, that there are no other forces that could have caused the warming by saying their climate models can only explain the observed warming if CO2 is the only cause of the warming. This logic is circular, because the climate models are only calibrated with threefold amplification based on the assumption that there were no other causes for the recent global warming trend. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The press apparently isn’t inquisitive enough to notice this trick. When critics outside the climate establishment point it out, the climate establishment just denigrates them and then announces in their most reassuring voice that they are the authorities and it’s all ok. What a bunch of charlatans! Finally, notice from Figure21 that human CO2 emissions could not have caused the half of the global warming before 1850, so their assumption about no other causes is obviously wrong. So no evidence—just a logical trick that is sufficient to fool most of the audience.

They also on occasion offer up other historical instances as evidence for the threefold feedbacks amplification, but they are all very flimsy. The threefold amplification is really just based on the warming starting around 1700, which is the only instance for which we have decent numbers.]

If there was evidence for the threefold amplification by the feedbacks, surely we would have heard all about it, just like we hear about the evidence for the first two links? Instead we are just referred to climate models and told how terrific they are. But models are just computerized calculations; they are not evidence.

The climate establishment and media only talk about the first two links. Hardly anyone knows about the third link, which is responsible for most of the projected warming. If the case for man-made global warming is strong, why this obfuscation?

The effect of the feedbacks is the crucial question in climate science.

Empirical Test for the Link In Question

To appreciate the desperation and sheer chutzpah of the establishment’s shenanigans, you need to know a tiny bit about the feedbacks.

The dominant feedback involves the extra water vapor that evaporates, mainly off the oceans, due to the direct warming due to the extra CO2. (Water vapor is water in its gaseous form. When water vapor becomes liquid water again it forms droplets of water in the air, that is, clouds.)

There are basically two possible alternatives for this extra water vapor:

It can tend to accumulate in the atmosphere, increasing the depth of humid air in the atmosphere. Because water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this further increases the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. This in turn causes more warming, thereby amplifying the direct warming. (Amplifying feedback increases the effect of an initial cause. Also called “positive” feedback.)

It can forms clouds, without increasing the depth of humid air in the atmosphere. Extra clouds reflect more sunlight back out to space, causing cooling which counteracts the direct warming of the extra CO2, thereby moderating the direct warming. (Moderating or dampening feedback decreases the effect of an initial cause. Also called “negative” feedback. Note that negative feedback does not reverse the initial effect; it just reduces it to less than it would have been in the absence of the negative feedback.)

Clouds reflect sunlight back to space and leave cool shadows, in this case, over the tropical Indian Ocean between Australia and Indonesia

The threefold amplification assumed by the climate establishment can only occur if the first alternative is correct. To confirm that the feedback is amplifying, we need to see the depth of humid air increase during a period of global warming. The humid air is also warmer than the dry air above it, so we need to see it become warmer at heights initially just above the humid air. The climate models all specifically say that this happens.

Here is a “prediction” by the climate establishment that the feedbacks are amplifying, expressed as a pattern of warming in the atmosphere. This prediction is empirically testable.

Figure 25: The theoretical warming patterns for 1958 to 1999, calculated by the establishment’s climate models, in °C per 42 years. From the US CCSP of 2006, Figure 1.3 on page 25. Covers the period 1958 to 1999, but since there was no net warming from 1958 to 1977 so it essentially covers the period of warming from 1977 to 1999. A similar “prediction” in IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9 (www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf), Figure 9.1, in Section 9.2.2.1 on page 675. There are many such published predictions; they all feature a prominent hotspot about 12 km up in the tropics.

…

This is the pattern of atmospheric warming that the climate establishment say occurred, according to their climate models. Each of the six diagrams shows temperature changes by latitude (x-axis) and by height in the atmosphere (y-axis, height in kilometers on the right).

Diagram A is the warming pattern due to an increase in greenhouse gases other than water vapor—that is, essentially from CO2 emissions. Diagram F is the warming pattern expected from the sum of all the five patterns A – E in the proportions the establishment believe those causes contributed to global warming; it is dominated by signature A because the establishment’s theory is that the warming was mainly due to CO2 emissions.

Notice the large prominent red “hotspot”, about 12 km high in the tropics, in F. The detection of this theoretical hotspot would go a long way to confirming that the feedbacks are amplifying; its absence would prove that the feedbacks are not amplifying.

The outcome of the climate debate hinges on this issue: a hotspot confirms their theory, its absence falsifies their theory.

The Theory of Man-Made Global Warming Failed an Empirical Test

The last period of global warming was about 1975 to 2001 (Figures14 and 20). Fortunately, during the whole of this period there was a worldwide program of measuring the temperature at all altitudes using radiosondes—weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as they ascend through the atmosphere.

During the early and middle 1990s the climate establishment were expecting the radiosondes to find the hotspot, confirm the presence of amplifying feedbacks, and thus prove the last link in their theory of man-made global warming. But then their world fell apart.

By 1999 the results were in, but there was no hotspot. Not even a small hotspot.

Why didn’t the climate establishment rush out to the world with the good news, that they had overestimated the projected temperature increases, that there was now little cause for alarm over the climate?

As it happens, around that time they were publicizing the hockey stick (Figure23), and basking in the attention, status, and research grants from a concerned world.

They finally published the radiosonde observations in 2006, buried among four other diagrams from climate models at the back of a report. Here is that diagram:

…

Figure 26: The observed pattern of atmospheric warming, 1979 – 1999, as per the US CCSP of 2006, part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116. (Axes deblurred.)

…

This is all the data we will ever have about that warming period, because we cannot go back in time and take more or better measurements. We are only interested in the atmospheric pattern when there is warming, so this is all the data we have about hotspots until there is another period of warming (see Figure20).

…

Figure 27: Figures 26 and 25-F, side by side for comparison.

…

The observed pattern is nothing like the “predicted” pattern, so the climate models are wrong. There was no hotspot in reality, so the theory of man-made global warming is greatly exaggerated (because there are no amplifying feedbacks).

[The non-observation of the hotspot was later supported and extended by two independent observations, one on clouds (Spencer, 2008 and 2010) and the other on radiation leaving the earth (Lindzen and Choi, 2009 and 2010). In both cases the total feedbacks were observed to moderate the direct warming by roughly halving it, which suggests that the climate establishment are exaggerating future temperature changes by a factor of about six—that is, if they say 3°C hotter by the end of the century it will be about 0.5°C warmer.]

The Response of the Climate Establishment

First they ignored it, for several years. (It wasn’t like the media or politicians were asking them hard questions about the discrepancy in Figure 27. And it’s not like they wanted to jeopardize their new-found popularity and funding.)

Then, in 2008, they denied the data. Ben Santer emphasized the uncertainties in the data from the radiosonde thermometers. On the basis of a complex statistical argument he argued that it was possible that the observed data (Figure 26) was so error-ridden that the predicted hotspot (Figure 25) might in fact be present in the observed data. However radiosondes reliably detect temperature differences of 0.1°C when correctly calibrated and operated, and the hotspot is at least 0.6°C of warming. Some radiosondes may have been faulty, but hundreds of them could not all have failed to detect any hotspot.

Then, also in 2008, after nine years and with no new data, they claimed to have found the hotspot! Steven Sherwood adjusted the data in accordance with various theories and wind data from the radiosondes, and processed it on his computer to arrive at a new view of the data in Figure 26:

Looks like the predicted hotspot, right? But look closely at the color scale and note the color of zero change—it’s red! So if the atmosphere stayed at exactly the same temperature everywhere, Sherwood’s interpretation would be an all-red graph! The reds in his diagram blend together and it is impossible to see where his “hotspot” might be—but his “hotspot” is too faint anyway, because the hotspot in the climate models is at least 0.6°C over two decades.

If Sherwood used the same color scale as in Figures 25 or 26, it would be obvious that he had not found the hotspot. Why would a leading climate scientist play a “trick” like choosing the color scale such that no change or even slight cooling was in red?

What purpose could there be, except to mislead?

Even if you don’t understand the significance of the hotspot, isn’t a tricky color scale like this a sign of deception, a solid hint that they are trying to hide something?

Sherwood’s paper appeared in the Journal of Climate. Professor Sherwood was at Yale from 2001 to 2008, and is now at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW in Sydney.

213 comments to Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of the Matter and the Coloring-In Trick

The hot spot is missing, positive feedbacks are rare in nature and there is no empirical proof that a positive feedback in the climate system exists and the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified. Real scientists go back to the blackboard and start over at this point but not the climate science cabal. They have to much to lose.

Climate scientists tend to ignore geology as the geological record shows no relationship between CO2 and temperatures over the last 600,000,000 years. In fact, EVERY ice core record shows that CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise because temperatures ALWAYS rise before CO2 levels do. A runaway greenhouse gas effect has never occurred in the history of the planet. In fact, EVERY ice core record shows that temperatures decline WHILE CO2 levels continue to rise. If the runaway greenhouse effect were real life on Earth would have been extinguished millions of years ago and we wouldn’t be here to debate the matter.

True, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The glue that has held this scam together so far is composed of avarice, pride and vanity. Climate science was an obscure and poorly funded discipline until the greens realized they could use it as a trojan horse to breach the gate of freedom and democracy in the civilized world. The scientists were told that their pay could not be guaranteed at the CRU. Once the global warming scare got legs money began to flow and the climate scientists became addicted to what it purchased: respect, financial security and power.

They should start a twelve step program for these so called pillars of the scientific community CAA (Climate Alarmists Anonymous.)

Then, in 2008, they denied the data. Ben Santer emphasized the uncertainties in the data from the radiosonde thermometers. On the basis of a complex statistical argument he argued that it was possible that the observed data (Figure 26) was so error-ridden that the predicted hotspot (Figure 25) might in fact be present in the observed data.

Santer et al 2008 included many of the usual cast of characters like Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Gavin Schmidt, Susan Solomon, Tom Karl etc. Besides the usual statistical games that ‘the team’ plays the paper also only looked at data until 1999 (conveniently only looking up to the super El Nino of 1998). Just last month McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman published a new paper which includes statistics up until 2009. One of the unique characteristics about this paper is that it includes all data and code, something that is foreign to ‘the team’.

——–

Connection to ‘big oil’ disclaimer: My opinions may be biased as when I was 4 years old I had a pet turtle named ‘Shell’.

There is also another evidence of low sensitivity of climatic system. Dr. Spencer besides his work about negative feedback of clouds along with Braswell wrote also posts at his blog, in which he confirms the main reason why the warmists calculated so high sensitivity factor is they attributed temperature effect of ocean oscillations to the high sensitivity. Actually most of temperature variability of the industrial era can be explained by PDO, SOI and AMO indices. You can find very graphic explanation of the variability with linear combination of the indices (adjusted with time lag). The effect of the ocean variability is missing in the GCM models and Dr. Spencer shows that most of the calculated sensitivity comes from misinterpreting the ocean effect as the sensitivity effect.

Warmists base their objections to these evidences on Trenberth “debunking” of Lindzen negative feedback while saying “debunking” of Spencer is on the way. They also usually tell history of climate cannot be explained without high climatic sensitivity for example very steep heating at ends of glacial periods.

Climatology does not use the scientific method and is therefore not a science. Climatologists (unlike scientists), don’t share their data, don’t adjust their theories to fit the data but instead fake the data to fit their theories. Climatologists don’t seek a deeper understanding but instead seek to prop up their dogma, which is more in keeping with institutionalized religion than science.

Climatology is not a science, it is more akin to a branch of Scientology.

You put things so succinctly – I appreciate how difficult that is, especially with complex scientific topics – and once again, you have exposed the truth of the matter for all to see.

[Shucks, Thanks Rereke, but I do feel compelled to say that while David and I discuss these things behind the scenes ad infinitum, those are his succinct words and he deserves credit JN]

But unfortunately, lies have weight, so the truth will “float away”, while the real-politick continues unabated.

The scientists involved in this scam are dead-meat. They know that. We know that. They are now a liability to those who sought, and still seek, to profit from the fear and confusion created in this latest scam.

Phil Jones has worked out how the game is played at the top levels, and that is why he appeared to age twenty years in as many months. He was a two-ulcer man in a four-ulcer job. Others on the hockey team are probably faring no better. Even Al Gore, who thought he was capable of playing with the big boys, has now realised that he was no more than cannon fodder.

Unfortunately, (or perhaps fortunately, for their own sanity) the great majority of the populace are incapable of comprehending a scam on such a grand scale. It is a tenet of propaganda that if you are going to tell a lie, then it has to be so big that nobody can believe it is a lie. “It must be the truth … surely”?

So the little green fluff-bunnies are still bouncing around telling us that we are using the wrong light bulbs.

And the politicians, who are the only group who can legally demand money with menaces, are still “taking advice” from their bureaucratic “policy advisors”, who also have long-term career investments in the scam.

And then there are the “Names” – the celebrities who donate their money to green causes (mainly for tax reasons), and give their time to promote the cause (and themselves). They are hardly likely to accept that this was, “but a dream within a dream”.

And finally, there are the trillions of pounds/euros/dollars now invested in “Green Industries” that have sprung up to provide the wind, tide, and solar technologies required to respond to “the greatest threat to mankind that the world has ever seen”. Are those investors going to be happy, if the bubble bursts? For none of these new technologies are viable without serious government subsidies.

So you are right Jo. It was a scam, and still is a scam, built on a lie.

But if you step back and look at the bigger picture, the surgery required to set the record straight may well be so traumatic that we end up killing the patient.

This scam is now so big, and so involved, with so many conflicting (and conflicted) interests, that it may well be impossible to wind back out of it without destroying the world economy.

More CO2 May Mean More Cooling Cloud Cover (Complete with the the new ‘D’ word.)
“Rising global carbon dioxide levels disrupt…..”

“Lee says that these observations suggest that the CO2-rich conditions of the future may increase DMS production, which could then initiate more cloud formation. And because cloud cover scatters and reflects solar radiation, the process could possibly cool the atmosphere.”http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i42/8842news.html

JO, BEAUTIFUL. I have been saying it for years GIGO that is how you spell climate computer models. I will be back in a few hours to see if Spatch comes out to play and see what he has to spout off about. He still has not answered my questions to him and many others about their proof with out bringing up models because that is the only evidence that I have ever been told about from any warmist!

‘The politicians, who are the only group who can legally demand money with menaces.’
Brilliant! That is a one liner that deserves international recognition and universal uptake.

It especially relevant for people in rural Australia where governments withdraw services. Citing economic rationalism but continue to charge (tax) rural people for those services, at the same rate as the urban population who still receive them.

Getting this to the ‘Too big to fail’ stage has been the goal all along.
It then takes on a life of it’s own and everyone involved has a ‘get out of jail free’ card.

Eddy Aruda
Spot on: What is keeping these guys awake at the moment is the thought, of ‘have they committed the legal definition of fraud’
That is why all you seem to hear now is the continual bleating, the science is sound, the science is sound, CO2 can cause warming.
I haven’t heard any mention of feedback loops and tipping points for quite so time.

AGW Always was a very convenient Trojan horse, and it becomes obvious as soon as you pin any of the believers down on the science. And the fact that temperature rises (if any) are slowing and definitely not accelerating towards disaster in the way that the climate models predicted.
They will then immediately changed tack to we have to reduce pollution/ solve the problems of the Third World/ have a fairer distribution of the world’s resources/ect.

I always reply to that, identify a precise problem and we will start working on a precise solution to that problem. Anything else is simply hand wringing. Which is all they are really doing anyway, they don’t want to exert themselves on a solution, they simply want to create the illusion that they care.

No lie is too big to overturn. Communist Russia was built on a lie and it died. Nazism was based on a lie and it died. Cheap housing for thr poor was based on a lie and it died. Painful? Hell yes but was the pain worth it. You bet.

This AGW scam will not die on the altar of logic or good science. It will die because the people will see the world getting cooler. The jokes abound even now; “where is global warming?”. In itself that will not be sufficient to bury the carcass. What will cause the collapse of a political scam, as we all know it is, is the political process driven by the imposition of taxes. Increasing electricity prices associated with saving the planet from uncontrollable heating when everyone is freezing will raise the hackles and realisation of even the biggest schmuck.

The realisation that the world is really cooling is the main driver behind the rush to introduce the Gillard/Green carbon tax so soon after telling the voters that she planned no such thing. The chance to cream a significant tax from voters is fast disappearing. Cold snowy winters in the UK and US are real. Water flowing down the Darling is real. Full dams in the cities just when the populace were told by Tim Flannery they needed expensive desal is real. The additional charges to pay for desal is also real.

I may be an optimist but I suggest we all keep fighting because our cause is just, our science is right but most of all because the general population need our help. We can unseat the dishonest politicians and in turn turn off the grants tap to dishonest scientists.

Increasing CO2 levels causes the temperature at the surface of the earth to rise, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is the “direct” warming effect of the extra CO2.

“There is ample evidence for the first two links, and they are rarely disputed.”

There are a few cranks out there who dispute the above, and not all of them live in Germany.

I don’t see how a greenhouse “feedback,” no matter how small, would not eventually or cyclically saturate the atmosphere.

Strictly speaking Miskolczi found that positive and negative “feedbacks” equilibrate because he assumes the upper and lower regios of the atmosphere are in equilibrium, bit I hate to point out to anybody that no part of the ocean or the atmosphere is in “equilibrium” with anything.

Thus, according to some cranks we have a pretty good reason why there’s no “hot spot” but we do however have some pretty good pictures of some forlorn looking polar bears and ought to be all the proof anybody needs

David nicely details the reasons behind the corruption, although I certainly don’t see any of them viewing themselves as “corrupt.”

Any such thing endorsed by the likes of the Royal Society and one’s Prime Minister would hardly seem “corrupt” to anyone.

True, most if not all are plagued by some nagging doubts, but those are easily dispelled by the “feedback” that will be observed if any such doubts are even hinted about.

Everybody does what they do in what they view as humanity’s betterment, I’m quite sure, and the consequences of AGW alarmism are known detriment to humanity, perpetuating abject poverty and misery for many. This must be viewed by many as a sad but necessary consequence of ultimately making things better for everyone

This is an excellent choice to show how little credibility there is in the whole feedback house of cards:

It’s important to note that the surface temperature change is proportional to the sensitivity and radiative forcing (in W m-2), regardless of the source of the energy imbalance. The climate sensitivity to different radiative forcings differs depending on the efficacy of the forcing, but the climate is not significantly more sensitive to other radiative forcings besides greenhouse gases.

So sensitivity is all the same regardless of the forcing, but at the same time, it might be different thanks to an “efficacy” which means whatever you want it to mean, in order for everything to have the same sensitivity. Hmmmm, right I think I’ve got it. So what are the units of “efficacy”? Oh, it doesn’t have any units, it is unitless because all factors are scaled relative to CO2 forcing… except we have some of those forcings being solar radiation, others being a gas, and others as particulate matter. What sort of unitless scaling factor can relate particulate counts to solar radiation? Why, CO2 of course! Is that the LOG of CO2 vs the LOG of solar radiation (presumably giving an answer in decibels)? Maybe it is the small signal gain based on the first derivative about some arbitrary operating point? Who knows, who cares, just blurt some numbers on the table, no one is about to check any of this.

In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions.

Unless you happen to argue for different “efficacy” factors, in which case you get any result you feel like getting.

In fact, as shown in Figure 1, the climate is less sensitive to changes in solar activity than greenhouse gases.

So some forcings are more equal than others, makes sense. Solidarnosk comrade, we will outlast them.

Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet’s average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?

Well, the easiest way to explain it would be that the system is nonlinear so there’s no reason to presume sensitivity is the same as it was during the last glaciation. But with all of these excellent “efficacy” fudge factors (all of which probably are also nonlinear) we could comfortably explain anything at all. Really. So let’s go over those units again

People write learned papers about this $#!+ such as the following:

We use a global climate model to compare the effectiveness of many climate forcing agents for producing climate change. We find a substantial range in the “efficacy” of different forcings, where the efficacy is the global temperature response per unit forcing relative to the response to CO2 forcing.

You heard it, “per unit of forcing”. Under the IPCC system of units, forcing is a fundamental unit and well established property of all matter (a bit like mass, but only special people can measure it). The units of forcing are CO2′s. By gum, what I can’t understand is why I ever sat through high school science.

Efficacy of different forcings? Or is it how many pinhead climate scientists can dance on the head of a pin? Oh! Scuse me. That’s supposed to be how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And it sounds like a more useful question to answer. Do you suppose I can get a couple of hundred million bucks to research it? I can write up a really impressive report…make em proud of how they spent the taxpayer’s money.

That’s supposed to be how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And it sounds like a more useful question to answer. Do you suppose I can get a couple of hundred million bucks to research it?

Absolutely! Just word your grant request to show that you are studying the effect of anthropogenic global warming on the number of angels that can dance on the head of the pin and your funding is assured. Remember, if the bureaucrats don’t spend the money they will have a smaller budget next year!

Communist Russia was built on a lie and it died. Nazism was based on a lie and it died.

On one level, I get your point, and it is well put.

But technically, Communism (in Russia) didn’t die. The supporting political apparatus collapsed under its own weight and mismanagement. But the principles of Communism were not beaten, nor did they die, they morphed into the brand of European Socialism that we see behind Greenpeace, and WWF (formally known as the World Wildlife Fund, before it had a name change to get onto the climate bandwagon), and the other Green movements and political parties (Watermelons – right?).

Nazism (or National Socialism, to give it its real name) didn’t die – it was killed. The National Socialist system worked very well in Germany, and would have probably spread throughout Europe anyway, if Hitler had been more stable, and less concerned with the economic and military restrictions placed on Germany after the First World War. Remember, Hitler was democratically elected. National Socialism is still around, and is showing some resurgence in central Europe as the war generation becomes no more. National Socialists are very much against loosing jobs to foreign workers, for example, sound familiar?

But generally, I agree with you. However, to get past the current “big lie” will take something very dramatic, like a war, or a severe economic collapse. And this is just because of the huge numbers of people who receive a small but tangible benefit in it remaining. Whatever the dramatic event might be, it will need to be on a scale that is big enough to destroy or radically alter the UN.

Eddy is right. If water vapour is a net positive feedback the atmosphere overall would be unstable, which we observe is not the case. It is relevant that the proposed mechanism of amplification is not specific for CO2. Any increase in temperature will cause water to evaporate and set the positive feedback going.

Also, this has to be a local effect (not over deserts, presumably; and much more active over the oceans than land) which becomes global only as the sum of all local effects. The tropics seem stable (if sometimes stormy) so the rest of the world can at least warm to tropical temperatures before any positive feedback.

Eddy Aruda:
I’ve just had some practical experience in that regard. I’m the treasurer of our local sports club and last year we obtained a government grant to install a new ablutions block an administration building. After collecting commercial quotes on the cost of the entire project, we received a grant on a 2/3s government 1/3 us basis, and used the government 2/3s to purchase and have delivered the (demountable) buildings. We then engaged in some serious arm-twisting/emotional blackmail on everyone from the local electrical contractors to the Council to waive their normal commercial profit and install the buildings plumbing and electrical etc on an at cost basis. Everyone came to the party and as a result we saved $24,000 on the project.

Even though we can account for the money given to us from the government we are now being asked to repay two thirds of money saved by the goodwill of local businesses and Council. In my opinion that $24,000 is essentially a donation given to the club by the businesses involved.

I’ve told the people in question that I will repay the money when the minister involved is prepared to pose for a photo standing in front of the completed buildings handing a local community volunteer (me) a court order demanding the money.

The bottom line is, that’s the way bureaucracy works, spend everything your given and asked for more, and you will probably get it.
Save some money and you will be punished by having to pay it back.

Ironically, I think if we had gone through the long and complicated process of having all the businesses and Council invoice the club for the full commercial cost of the work done. Have the club issue cheques for those full amounts, and then had the businesses and councils write out cheques for what would have been their commercial profit, and hand it back to us, the bureaucratic process would have been satisfied.
Instead of the simpler more commonsense process, of okay we will just invoice you for our costs.

The proposition that the average temperature of the earth’s surface is warming because of increased emissions of human-produced greenhouse gases cannot be tested by any known scientific procedure

It is impossible to position temperature sensors randomly over the earth’s surface (including the 71% of ocean, and all the deserts, forests, and icecaps) and maintain it in constant condition long enough to tell if any average is increasing. Even if this were done the difference between the temperature during day and night is so great that no rational aveage can be derived.

Measurements at weather stations are quite unsuitable since they are not positioned representatively and they only measure maximum and minimum once a day, from which no average can be derived. They also constantly change in number, location and surroundings. Recent studies show that most of the current stations are unable to measure temperature to better than a degree or two

The assumptions of climate models are absurd. They assume the earth is flat, that the sun shines with equal intensity day and night, and the earth is in equilibrium, with the energy received equal to that emitted.

Half of the time there is no sun, where the temperature regime is quite different from the day.

No part of the earth ever is in energy equilibrium, neither is there any evidence of an overall “balance”.

It is unsurprising that such models are incapable of predicting sny future climate behsviour, even if this could be measured satisfactorily.

There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric csrbon dioxide over any land surface, where “greenhouse warming” is supposed to happen.

After twenty years of study, and as expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning , I can only conclude that the whole affair is a gigantic fraud

Here is another wonderful comment on the SciAmerican article by Curry – on the unregulated and unaudited nature of climate science despite its public policy impact:

34. MichaelC58
02:38 AM 10/24/10A hint of a rethink of blind faith in CAGW by the SciAmerican, even through the gritted teeth of Mr Lemonick, is most welcome.

There is another point Dr Curry makes which is dear to my heart peer reviewed vs regulated science.

Industries affecting public safety, such as medicine and aviation are highly regulated. Peer review is fine for theoretical research, but if you want to inflict it on the public, you must use regulated science. This means complying with quality and performance standards in research, use independent test labs, government auditors and investigators such as the FDA and their gun-carrying enforcement officers. We, in the medical industry, must maintain all design, safety and all adjustments of data in auditable, incorruptible non-repudiatable forms, or we are not believed and are shut down. The public expect this – because lives are at risk.

Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.

Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex – all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review. To a medical researcher like myself, it’s utter surreal madness.

And then you hear story after story of arbitrary adjustments, homogenization, lost data, breach of IPCC’s own protocol, conflicts of interests and colossal profiteering and even criminal activity (EU carbon trading) in the subsidized green industry. Has it not occurred to anyone that a trillion dollar industry may need independent scrutiny of its claims?

Please ask yourself – would you buy a headache tablet made by the IPCC process? i.e. by peer review between a bunch of pharmaceutical researchers, without FDA oversight?

Let me help you – NO, you would not. So why are we buying climate alarmism without the complete transparency and external audit of the assumptions, the data, the statistics and conclusions? After all, lives are at risk.

Dessler has just produced a paper purporting to contradict Paltridge’s findings of less water vapour in the atmosphere; Lacis and Schmidt have also produced a new paper purporting to show that non-condesible gases like CO2 have a much greater greenhouse effect than water. If Dessler and Lacis are correct there must be a THS.

shows that neither Dessler’s findings, even if correct, which apparently Paltridge refutes, or the Lacis paper have any efficacy. The Russian paper shows that water reduces pressure through condensation dynamics; and less pressure means less temperature. The models have not factored in this relationship between condensation and pressure and therefore temperature; this explains why their assumption of a THS is ill-founded and requires bizarre and unscientific analyses such as in the Sherwood paper on wind-shear, for support and validation.

I have said this before there is one way to get through to politicians, that they can not ignore.
Do not ever vote for any politician spouting AGW justified policies from any party whatsoever,
because you know they are lying to you, for their own benefit, not yours.
If that means there is no one to vote for, so be it. It will create a political vacuum someone will have to fill.
Which is what we want. No AGW “science” in politics.

We recently read how German born chemist, Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser has published evidence that shows the Royal Society (RS), London, has made errors in mathematical calculations over the duration of carbon dioxide (CO2) persistence in Earth’s atmosphere. Backed up by a leading Swedish mathematics professor, the revelation damages the credibility of the British science institute and casts doubt on its claims about climate change.

An error in their own basic calculations led the RS to falsely find that CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years rather than a dozen or so, as peer-reviewed studies show. Global warming skeptics have highlighted the error and called for immediate correction.

The Royal Society advises the British government on matters concerning climate change. Due to the scale of the error, any forthcoming review will necessarily result in a substantial downward revision of the threat posed by CO2 in the official government numbers.

Climate writer and former US Navy meteorologist, Dr. Martin Hertzberg has referred to several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be “between 5 and 10 years.”

Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser calculates that with a half-life of 5 years it means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser poses the question that if CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, then why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last hundred years?

There is certainly no ample evidence for any greenhouse effect what so ever. The lukewarmers position is illogical, untenable and just as politically motivated as that of the alarmists. Their only purpose is to hijac the “authority” of a few climatologists like Lindzen and Spencer. Just think about it for a moment. One of their pet arguments is that H2O is by far the most important greenhouse gas, yet they dispute the “water vapor feedback”. Can it become any more illogical. If we accept that the temperature would decrease close to -18C without water vapor the atmospheres capability to harbor water vapor would decrease significantly and the earth would turn into ice. The positive feedbacks are built into the system from the beginning and are in abundance.

Under all normal circumstances water acts as a thermostat, not as some kind of self-exciting dynamite.

The IPCC pontificates: “The recent rate of change is dramatic and unprecedented; increases in CO2 never exceeded 30 ppm in 1 kyr – yet now CO2 has risen by 30 ppm in just the last 17 years.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 4th Assessment Report, 2007

The Earth has seen ice ages when CO2 levels were more than an order of magnitude greater than they are today. Open the window of your mind and let some fresh air in. You may find it intellectually refreshing. There is life after trolling and I hope you get the help you so obviously need.

When linking temperature increases directly to CO2, they should be rising on the same scale as the gas increase. But they are not!

What is happening is a displacement of lighter gases for heavier gases. This has slowed down wind speeds across this planet. The rotating planet and this gas is in close senquence. This is displacing gases and adding pressure in the atmosphere.
Notice how tornados start in the clouds and pull incredible widspeeds from that level of the atmosphere, yet it is theorized hurricanes and cyclones get their energy from the ocean. Evaporating water yes but not the wind speeds as these are 3-4 km in height in the atmosphere.
So, compressing up more atmosphere gives more energy to these hurricanes and cyclones.

“Lee says that these observations suggest that the CO2-rich conditions of the future may increase DMS production, which could then initiate more cloud formation. And because cloud cover scatters and reflects solar radiation, the process could possibly cool the atmosphere.”

Gee, with all those mays and coulds, sounds like a rock solid hypothesis to me.

Ken Mourin:
October 24th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
So how do we get the message through to the politicians and the media?

These kids are way ahead of you skeptics…

Australian Youth Climate Coalition – We’ve just wrapped up a fantastic day of training for 30 amazing AYCCers from around the country who will be meeting with 50 politicians over the next two days! Biggest youth climate lobby day ever in Australia!

Brian H,
Actually I know nothing about medical research standards either here in Australia or elsewhere, to have faith in them or otherwise.
I merely agreed with the comment to the extent that it would be a good idea to have the highest possible standards of oversight applied to scientific research where the results are of real public importance.
If your source is right and regulated oversight of medical research is not screening out the bad science, then what hope is there for the pal-reviewed system prevalent in climate science?

You seem to have failed to grasp the concept of what is being discussed, let me break it down a bit for you.

IPCC version of events:

Man digs up coal and gas burns it, this process produces CO2 which despite it being heavier than air floats up into the atmosphere to cause AGW. If we continue to burn coal and gas then the ppm of CO2 will continue to rise. If we stop burning coal and gas as of now we will still experience a vast majority of AGW because the level of ppm in the atmosphere will not change much for 100′s or thousands of years because the residency of CO2 in the atmosphere (time it takes to be absorbed)is 100′ to 1000′s of years. Therefore CO2 is bad and we must stop producing it.

A not widely discussed alternative is:

The residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 5 years and at best 10 years, there fore if we stopped producing CO2 it will take only a handful of years for CO2 levels to return to the preindustrial levels. This alternative theory means CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not going to cause AGW to continue for 1000′s of years thus the scare is stopped in its tracks.

With the above in mind you said “it takes 5 years for it to be first absorbed into the ocean, but it will be expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed many times. hence the atmospheric concentration will remain high.”

If i dig up coal burn it to produce a molecule CO2 and a plant sucks in the molecule and releases the oxygen and puts the carbon into the ground how is this CO2 molecule that no longer exists going to be expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed/expelled/absorbed?

Also the time taken between the release and absorption of a CO2 molecule is considered as the “residency time” the fact that it may get re released in say the next 10 million years has no bearing on what we are discussing.

Spatch #52
If Karoly had anything new to say, it would have been all over the ABC and The Age by now. Yawn……….
Amanda and her youth group, are they REALLY paying power and water bills so soon ? I think we should hear from their Mummies and Daddies
too

This figure shows the degree to which carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions persist in the atmosphere over time.

The lifetime of a gas in the atmosphere is generally known as its “residence time”, but unlike other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide does not undergo a simple decline over a single predictable timescale. Instead, the excess carbon is first diluted by the carbon cycle as it mixes into the oceans and biosphere (e.g. plants) over a period of a few hundred years, and then it is slowly removed over hundreds of thousands of years as it is gradually incorporated into carbonate rocks.

The dilution of carbon is such that only 15-30% is expected to remain in the atmosphere after 200 years, with most of the rest being either incorporated into plants or dissolved into the oceans. This leads to a new equilibrium being established; however, the total amount of carbon in the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system remains elevated. To restore the system to a normal level, the excess carbon must be incorporated into carbonate rocks through geologic processes that progress exceedingly slowly. As a result, it is estimated that between 3 and 7% of carbon added to the atmosphere today will still be in the atmosphere after 100,000 years (Archer 2005, Lenton & Britton 2006).

This is supported by studies of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, a large naturally occurring release of carbon 55 million years ago that apparently took ~200,000 years to fully return to pre-event conditions (Zachos et al. 2001).

we are next Mandarine when they suddenly realise how many have taken up the solar panels and want the 60c/kWh to pay off their investment but the Government and the power companies realise they can’t afford it.

Macha, I’ve said it all before, there is no way that the stratosphere can cool and the troposphere warm without expending work, period. Spencer thinks that the troposphere warming via some intermediary that is cooler than the troposphere proves the “greenhouse” idea. It does not and I can’t be any more simple or straightforward.

Every thing you or Spencer or anybody else can come up with to make the “greenhouse” idea work somehow is convoluted and simply wrong.

At some point people are going to have to take that simple truth at face value and just accept it.

It’s NOT THERE, Dude, and if it ain’t there it ain’t there, and I can’t take the barriers to accepting that truth out of your head and you can’t PUT IT THERE because you and Spencer or anybody else think it OUGHT to be there

I am going to present your thoughts and work in forth comming INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COOLING THE EARTH AND My Paper is “Climate chaos? A Hysteria& simple myth.” You have and are doing a greate JOB.

Volcanos aside, just to be clear if i breathe in 0.04% of CO2 and 4.2% of the breath i exhale is CO2 then i am adding a small amount of co2 into the atmosphere, when you calculate how many species there are and their numbers on this planet who all do the same thing over and over again, this number begins to add up.

Now if we are to believe that before the IR co2 levels remained almost constant for millions upon millions of years then surely you must be wrong with your residency time. If co2 levels remained constant and yet co2 levels must have been increasing “something else” must have been removing the co2….yes. [fixed]ED

Spot on, the ost widely accepted, yet completely wrong simile in human history is the “blanket” used to describe “how” the so called “greenhouse effect” supposedly “works”.

The blanket we wrap ourselves in at night keeps us warm, because,IT REDUCES CONDUCTION AND CONVECTION OF OUR BODIES HEAT AWAY FROM US BY THE COLDER AIR.

Would the blanket “work” if it was suspended ten foot above us, of course not, that’s not how it works.
But unfortunately for “standard” greenhouse effect, “THEORY” (for goodness sakes…)
that is how it is supposed to “work”. – POPPYCOCK.
Radiation plays no part in why a blanket keeps you warm, reduced conduction and convection looses of your bodies heat explains it all.

AGW loves the blanket simile because it also implies “back radiation” when this is an imaginary AGW “force”,
that the GH “theory” is centrally dependent upon, again – it’s pure POPPYCOCK.
The atmospheric pressure gradient ensures most radiated photons escape to space, or are reabsorbed and emitted again,
until they do escape to space.It is a simple case of by chance of absorption alone, emitted photons will escape to space in an atmospheric pressure gradient.

This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years as measured from ice cores. Throughout most of the record, the large changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age. Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.

Is cut and paste all you can do? Your post at 91 was lifted from http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html and http://co2late.com/index2.htm. Your two posted links are different then the links you plagiarized. I noticed you never answered Roy’s question and I believe you lack the intellect and intelligence to do so. Or perhaps you can answer Roy’s question without cut and paste, posting links and engaging in ad hominems.

While your at it, lets see if you can dispute the fact that over the last 600,000,000 years the geological record shows no relationship between CO2 and temps. Also, respond to my post at # 45 if you can or change your screen name to Greased Weasel!

I just listened to the chat between Alan Jones and MP Denis Jensen. Jensen points out that our current rate of warming, 0.76 degrees per hundred years, is tiny compared to the rate of warming at the end of the last ice age. He says, live on radio, that there was a rate of warming of 15 degrees per hundred years at the end of the last ice age!

This is truly amazing. We went from ice age to current balmy climate in 100 years. I’d like to smoke whatever hi is gone.

If you’d bother to check before posting the usual flippant rubbish you would find that there were indeed wild temperature fluctuations up and down at the beginning and end of the last Ice Age. I’ve even seen docos on the (gasp) ABC reinforcing this.

You could do with whatever Dennis Jensen snorted (and I’m certain he didn’t). As it is, once more you show that if brains were dynamite you still couldn’t blow your nose!

#78 & 83. I can only guess that you have mis-represented the information.

It’s not about a colder bocy making a wamrer body any hotter. Read the relevant docs more carefully – colder body making it cool more slowly. A big difference – as is radiation versus convection.

I’ll try post the specific references later (unless your a bigot and can’t tolerate other views/reasoning). I keep at this because its important not to misrepresent the ‘denier’ claims;: ie yes its warming, yes mandmade CO2 has an influence, but NOT so convinced its a driver not catastrophically imminent, such that we need to quarranteen CO2 emmissions or spend godzillions on mitigation.

Here is a link to Physics World which unusually has a whole heap of its edition on PDF.
Most of it covers the for and against debate for nuclear power including thorium, etc.
I hope it is still open for downloading.

With nuclear power set for a potential comeback, the October 2010 issue ofPhysics World takes a long, hard look at the challenges and opportunitiesfacing nuclear energy. And for a limited time only, you can download theissue for free at physicsworld.com.http://physicsworld.com/cws/m/1882/279338/download/oct2010

“Forcing is generally taken to mean downward radiation measured at the TOA (top of atmosphere). The IPCC says that when TOA forcing changes, the surface temperature changes linearly with that TOA forcing change. If there is twice the forcing change (twice the change in solar radiation, for example), the IPCC says we’ll see twice the temperature change. The proportionality constant (not a variable but a constant) that the IPCC says linearly relates temperature and TOA forcing is called the “climate sensitivity”.

Today I stumbled across the IPCC justification of this linearity assumption. This is the basis of their claim of the existence of a constant called “climate sensitivity”. I quote it below.”

The man-made links to dramatic climate changes continue – even from the remotely populated and industry sparse Antarctic, can mankind influence the temperature and have the dreaded man-made CO2 emission levels ‘transferred’ across the sea to Australia’s weather (oops, forgive me – I’m told its not dry weather, its a drier climate we are now experiencing).

We are continually asked forget its been hotter and drier and wetter and colder in the past, and that more importantly, the rate of changes have been both faster and slower than current news breaks refer to (despite rapid changes in CO2 levels).

So if the snowfalls lower atmospheric moisture content and this makes the Ozzie air drier and hotter, does that not provide cause and effect evidence that water is the dominant driver and that CO2 is a ‘bit-player’? Else, why don’t these dastardly bad, rapidly increasing, CO2 levels ‘over-ride’ the obviously cold Antarctic?

But then again, I am loathed to read and refer to temperature data anymore. After all, where did it come from? Certainly the BoM and CSIRO data needs to be dealt with alarming scepticism.

Hey Spatch… I see you are living in absolutes.
I did not say ALL data! ANY with some confidence be good enough for me, for now. Why do you think Roy Spencer spends so much time validating his sources to show the warming anomolie trending -abeit a a decreasing rate..now why would that be?.

Where’s your stance on the PDO, sun cycle, influences? Or are you in full alliance with IPCC info.
PS. The mention of GHG …does this mean there is a GHG effect too? just need to check.

Encouraging to hear on Q & A our longest serving PM declare he is is a climate change agnostic wrt to the seriousness of human CO2 emissions. Like all good agnostics/skeptics/ monarchists he does sit up and take notice when the Royal Society moves in the direction of agnosticism.

It is about a former NASA contractor, atmospheric physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, and his theory demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is constant and self-regulating and that increases in human CO2 emissions are not the source of global warming.

All conventional greenhouse concepts are based on the idea that rising greenhouse gases cause an increase in atmospheric absorption, which in turn leads to atmospheric warming and higher surface temperatures. But Miskolczi’s research upends that conventional theory.

After studying hundreds of atmospheric profiles (extracted from the TIGR2 global radiosonde database from the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique in Paris), Dr. Miskolczi, discovered a self-regulating mechanism, or “constant,” that keeps Earth’s greenhouse gases in equilibrium. According to his equilibrium theory, this constant cannot be altered by increases in emissions of CO2 or other atmospheric gases such as methane.

In simple terms, Miskolczi has discovered a new law of physics that sets an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. According to this law, the surplus temperature from greenhouse gases is constant and cannot be increased. Why? Because the earth’s greenhouse blanket functions dynamically to maintain equilibrium in response to changes in greenhouse gases such as water vapor, CO2, methane and ozone.

Miskolczi stated: “With relatively simple computations using NOAA’s annual mean temperature, H20 and CO2 time series, I have shown that in the last 61 years, despite a 30 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the cumulative atmospheric absorption of all greenhouse gases has not been changed and has remained constant. There is no runaway greenhouse effect. The anthropogenic global warming theory is a lie, unless somebody proves otherwise,” .

The AGW story is the fourth (4th) of a series of distortions and misrepresentations of experimental observations by the federally-financed, scientific-technological elite that President Eisenhower warned about in 1961:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

There is only one establishment and they make most of their money from oil.

According to Fortune’s 2007 Global 500 listing, the ten largest global oil companies took in over $167 billion in profits in 2006 alone, nearly $50 billion more than the top ten companies in the second most profitable industry, commercial and savings banks.

The largest publicly traded oil companies operating in the United States and those with the greatest influence on U.S. policy- making are ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, Valero (the forty-third largest global corporation), and Marathon (the ninety- second largest global corporation). Each is either a direct descendant or has purchased direct descendants of Standard Oil. They are among the most powerful corporations in the world. These companies are Big Oil.

Big Oil is experiencing a level of power that has only one historical precedent: that of the Standard Oil era. And like Standard Oil, the companies appear willing to do anything to maintain their position. With over $40 billion in pure profit in 2007, ExxonMobil is the most profitable corporation both in the world and in world history. Its profits are larger than the entire economies of ninety-three of the world’s nations ranked by GDP. ExxonMobil had the most profitable year of any corporation ever in 2003 and then proceeded to surpass its own record every year for the next five years.

Shell and BP are headquartered in The Hague and London, respectively, but each has powerful, influential, and sizable American affiliates. Each is a leading U.S. campaign spender, heavily influencing and benefiting from the American political system. Shell and BP, combined with the Big Five, made an incredible and unprecedented $133 billion in pure profit in 2007, the equivalent of the combined GDPs of the forty-two poorest nations in the world, including Fiji, Kyrgyzstan, Bhutan, and Sierra Leone.
What does $133 billion in profits buy an industry?

It bought the oil industry at least eight years of a U.S. “oligarchy”: a government ruled by a small number of oil interests. The oil industry spent more money to get the George W. Bush administration into office in 2000 than it has spent on any election before or since. In return it received, for the first time in American history, a president, vice president, and secretary of state who are all former oil company officials. Every agency and every level of bureaucracy was filled with former oil industry lobbyists, lawyers, staff, board members, and executives, or those on their way to work for the oil industry after a brief stint of government service. The oil industry got what it paid for: an administration that has arguably gone further than just about any other in American history to serve Big Oil’s interests through deregulation, lax enforcement, new access to America’s public lands and oceans, subsidies, tax breaks, and even war.

“This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years as measured from ice cores . Throughout most of the record, the large changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age . Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth ‘s orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles ), these changes also influence the carbon cycle , which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.

Since the Industrial Revolution , circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO 2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels which are likely unprecedented in the last 20 million years [1] . This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.”

This is identical to your post at 91!

When I clicked on your first link (“This figure”) it took me to the following link http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png It shows the same graph as the one I accused you of plagiarizing from, http://co2late.com/index2.htm. My link show the same graph but has a quote below the graph which you plagiarized. You could have posted the right link with the quote but you deliberately used a different link to give the false impression that the quote was yours. One again, you are a liar and a plagiarist. Does your computer have a quotation key?

You called me a cyber bully? Wow, such hypocrisy from a troll that hides behind a screen name and a picture of an actor whom I am willing to bet you have never been mistaken for. You have made comments that are so rude they are often deleted by the editor.

When I put your feet to the fire and call you out for your utter nonsense you get your poor little feelings hurt! Too bad! Man up like you’ve got a pair!

One more time, are you going to answer Roy’s question or are you going to continue to lay there and intellectually bleed all over the field?

BTW, you mentioned at an earlier post something about the safety of a keyboard? [snip]

“When we learn how to store electricity, we will cease being apes ourselves; until then we are tailless orangutans. You see, we should utilize natural forces and thus get all of our power. Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy.”
“Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property.”

Edison made that strong statement 100 years ago in 1910. About 20 years later, speaking shortly before his death, it became quite apparent that he felt as strongly about the issue as ever:

“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait ’til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”

Stanford Ovshinsky is a modern day Edison. For example, Ovshinsky is a self-taught inventor who chose to work in the fields of energy and information and has done so over a career that spans more than 50 years. More specifically, and more importantly, after two completely separate and very long lifetimes of research and learning, both men came to virtually the same conclusion about a key issue. Both men accepted as true that solar energy combined with electric cars is smart and that burning fossil fuels for energy is stupid. As a matter of fact, Edison accepted that as true long before global warming and climate change were an issue.

You have other choices of blogs to go to, where you won’t feel “insulted” about your ridiculous beliefs, but if you come here, you get questioned about your ideas and get told when you’re wrong and when you can’t provide meaningful responses isn’t “cyber-bullying” it’s merely your own inability to accept the fact that the ideas you have been carrying around with you for a long time don’t happen to be true.

So if you want to live in your glass menagerie all the rest of your lives DON’T TRY TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE HERE and don’t try to impress the denizens herein with a bunch of garbage you “don’t know nothin’ about”

Again, you are a liar. The first link to appear when I clicked on ” This Thing” at 91 is http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png not, as you posted at 134 http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png. Anybody that clicks on your link at 91 will see that it has the graph without the quote. The link I posted at 131 http://co2late.com/index2.htm contains a series of graphs including the one you used. Whether you plagiarized the link I posted or the one you posted at 134 is immaterial as they both contain the exact same verbiage. The first link you posted at 91 had a picture of the graph without the verbiage. You intentionally cut and pasted the verbiage without quotation marks. All you had to do was to use the correct link and the verbiage would have appeared with the graph. Instead, you committed plagiarism. You have no integrity.

Spatch:
October 26th, 2010 at 5:44 am
@Eddy Aruda

As for Roy’s question. I’ll answer whatever I choose to answer. No amount of cyber-bullying from the likes of you will change that.

What a hypocrite. Here is a few quotes from you

Gee, Amanda has nice teeth. If the AGW balloon goes down, she has a great future as a toothpaste commercial model.

And when that day comes, blogs like this one, and the crusted on skeptics that inhabit it, will only become more irrelevant, much like the flat earthers are today.

…snakeoil…or just plain oil…whatever

Chew on this.

Choke on this

I choose to play by my own rules thank you very much.

There’s not enough time to debunk all of the nonsense in your post

The hard core sceptics/deniers are pretty much all conspiracy theory nutters. In their deluded minds AGW is just another conspiracy to add to their ever expanding list.

No worries, it’s just poking a bit fun at the silly post by mandarine:

Maybe you’ll think twice next time hey buddy!

Pathetic really.

Ah, now, see, your problem is that you actually think that there is serious discussion here.

Ha, serious discussion?? not! You’re like totally pwned dude!

That of course does not include the comments that were so rude as to be removed by the editor. If you want posters to be “nice” to you then you should practice what you preach. Almost all of your content is cut and paste. You have yet to post an original, cogent comment that I am aware of. You are a typical bully. When you run across someone that won’t put up with your BS you cry like a little girl and start wailing “cyber bully”! How pathetic!

The real reason you won’t answer Roy’s question (or any tough question from any other poster) is because you lack the intelligence to do so. The best you can do is cut and paste and evade.

If you want to “set an example for the children” then I suggest you quit acting like one.

Every time I see you post here with your mundane, trolling, insincere BS I am going to intellectually beat you into silly putty with your own words. As you would say, “choke on that.”

Brian @123;
A possible solution is that the heat transfers right past the stratosphere — by being redirected down into the tropopause whose H2O radiates it directly into space (little or no H2O higher up to intercept the radiation). More H2O in the tropopause makes the process more efficient as a negative feedback. (The higher mesopause is similar, but even colder, and uses CO2 radiation.)

Note that the tropopause is defined as a stable temperature layer of cold air, that doesn’t heat up itself because it is too good at dumping heat.

You finally got something right. The comment about amanda’s teeth was made by Allan Ford art 59. He was responding to a post of yours, my bad!

You said

I’m usually replying to some insulting post by a skeptic. Yep, I can give as good as I get.

Actually, that is not true. You either cut and paste or when stymied resort to insults. The only people who “give” are people who are responding to your comments as a troll. If you were to give as good as you get you would answer Roy’s question as well as that of other sincere posters but you do not.

So, now that you give as good as you get are you going to answer Roy’s question or would that be too taxing for you?

Temp in troposphere decreases linearly with altitude in troposphere to about -55 deg.C at tropopause (if surface temp averages 15 deg.C), in stratosphere temp rises to about 0 deg.C as a result of the absorption of UV radiation by ozone in stratosphere. Temp decreases again to about -90 deg.C above the ozone layer in the mesosphere.

The “greenhouse” effect is supposed to “trap” heat in the troposphere, so that the stratosphere cools because it never gets the radiant heat emitted from the Earth at night, and correspondingly, the radiation “stays in” the troposphere too long. The point Gerlich and Tscheuschner make, is that the tropopause nevertheless conducts heat, so that a “cooling” stratosphere and a “warming” troposphere by “greenhouse gas” forcing anyway means that heat flow by conduction is in the wrong direction and violates the second law.

Note that this doesn’t prohibit heat to flow in the other direction and cool the troposphere! This probably does happen, but is buried in the noise of all other influences to the climate (after all, the change in entropy of the troposphere by climate change is itself something that could not be discerned amidst random fluctuations of solar radiation back and forth through the tropopause)

@macha
Yeah, you skeptics have a real problem. You use data gathered by scientists to back up your arguments, and then claim that all the data is rubbish, thereby invalidating your arguments.

Your statement is non sequitur. The claim that all data is rubbish is a straw man. Perhaps you can quote where macha said that all data is rubbish. Moreover, the entire statement is a false syllogism. Your major premise that skeptics use data to “back up” their arguments is true. Your minor premise that all skeptics claim that “all data is rubbish” is false. Therefore, your conclusion about invalid arguments is false.

Hmmm. I think Eddy qualifies as the rudest bully. Others try and give him a run for his money, but mostly they just aren’t up to it. As for Spatch, his avatar is so much nicer than Eddy’s!

John, if I want [snip]. Maybe you should ask DiSpatched for his autograph. You do know that his avatar is a picture of a movie star named Tom Cruise? Don’t worry, he will probably give you his autograph if you ask him politely!

Since you’re so worried about CO2 in the atmosphere I figure you must be a real expert at worrying, not an amateur like me. And since you’re such an expert I’m going to turn over all my concern about the subject to you. So here it is. I put all my CO2 worries in your capable hands.

[takes a deep breath and smiles] What a load off my shoulders! I should have thought of this years ago. Thanks Spatch.

Within the fan community, suggestions for battling feelings of depression after seeing the movie include things like playing “Avatar” video games or downloading the movie soundtrack, in addition to encouraging members to relate to other people outside the virtual realm and to seek out positive and constructive activities.

Positive and constructive activities, like being happy with reality and living with it rather than trying to re-write it according to the fantasies of others with ulterior objectives

Hey Mandarine – Do you like playing “Avatar” video games and do you walk around whistling the “Avatar” tune?

“This site has no direct relationship with Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or any of their projects; however, the founder of this site is a supporter, contributor, and administrator on the English Wikipedia.This site will incorporate and liberally link to content on Wikipedia, and intends to honor both the spirit and the letter of the GFDL under which that content is made available. In support of this, links (left-hand menu) are provided to both the “page history” and “page source” for every page on this site. This should allow content from Global Warming Art to be incorporated into Wikipedia at such times and places that this is appropriate. Similarly, original figures that are created for this site will be freely licensed and, when suitable, many will also be added to Wikipedia.”

“In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months.”

Quoting wikipedia or globalwarmingart which “will incorporate and liberally link to content on Wikipedia” should be an embarrassment to you. If you are going to cut and paste you may want to do a little research first. Did you look at the sources for the links you used? Maybe you can share the rationale behind your choices? Can you do that? After all, it will be difficult to do becuase you will not be able to cut and paste or plagiarize!

I don’t have a problem with wikipedia or globalwarmingart. You’ll notice that wikipedia articles list their sources of info in the reference section of each article. I use those references to further read up on a subject of interest. For example, an article on CO2 lists, at the bottom of it, these references:

I don’t have a problem with wikipedia or globalwarmingart. You’ll notice that wikipedia articles list their sources of info in the reference section of each article. I use those references to further read up on a subject of interest.

The editing at wikipedia is biased so why not just cite the source? Now pick one of the papers in the long list you cited and discuss it in your own words without plagiarizing or doing your usual cut and paste. Since you have cited this long list there must at least be one that you have a rudimentary understanding of and can use to bolster and support your position, right?

BTW, just because there is a list of references does not mean that referenced literature is beyond dispute. There is no such thing as “settled science.” if there was, humans would still believe that the Earth was flat and that the sun, moon and stars revolved around it.

I eagerly await your response. Gee, I wonder what paper you will discuss, the suspense is killing me!

That’s three times now today that you’ve been proven wrong – you’re prone to sloppiness I see.

Perhaps, but there are three things I am right about!
1. You are a liar.
2. You are a plagiarist.
3. You are intellectually incapable of answering Roy’s question.

Prone to sloppiness? I suppose that would be you being so sloppy with your cut and paste at 134 as to be caught red handed lying! You keep digging yourself in deeper with each post. Your next half witted reply should be interesting!

No disrespect but Nick Stokes is not an atmospheric physicist… but he is entitled to his opinion. Highly qualified scientists have examined the work of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi and are convinced in what he has found. NASA was convinced too… it was just that NASA became so politicized on the subject of global warming that it could not be seen to be bucking the global warming mantra.

The fact is that not a single scientist has formally stepped forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory of a greenhouse constant that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium and prevents carbon dioxide emissions from raising global temperatures.

As Miskolczi has rightly stated:.

“There are billions of dollars of research grants at stake. And nobody likes to admit his mistakes . . . and that hundreds of research papers in high-reputation scientific journals dealing with the classic greenhouse theory were a waste of time, effort and money.”

Well ,Spatch, what paper in the list you cited would you like to discuss? Are you busy right now actually reading one? Are you searching your bookmarks while you break out in a cold sweat? Oh my God, you have painted yourself in a corner! Oh yeah, you are a guy who plays by his own rules!

The hypothesis that increased CO2 forcing will lead to a counterbalancing decrease in water vapor is highly speculative, and is not supported by the vast body of scientific literature. Miskolczi claims that the greenhouse effect should maintain a balance, so that every increase in a GHG should lead to a corresponding decrease in water vapor (and vice versa), effectively implying a climate sensitivity of zero.

A climate sensitivity of zero is completely incompatible with historical temperature variations, as it would imply an unchanging climate in direct contrast to historically recorded temperatures changes on all timescales.

Miskolczi also claims that “On global scale, however, there can not be any direct water vapor feedback mechanism, working against the total energy balance requirement of the system. Runaway greenhouse theories contradict to the energy balance equations and therefore, can not work.” This demonstrates a lack of understanding of feedback mechanisms in the climate.

Spatch — posting long lists of references is not going to impress real scientists (aka skeptics). Just because there is a list of references doesn’t mean that there is not also a real rebuttal for each one (it might be irrelevant, old, out of date, flawed, consider the wrong data, based on flawed reasons…) Don’t you think it’s just a little impolite to turn up to a conversation, declare most people in the room are wrong, and then not be able to discuss the actual data, conclusions or reasoning in particular papers that are claimed to support the “rebuttal”. If you are going to post a paper, you need to be prepared to discuss the details of that paper. If you havent read the paper, be prepared to be exposed as being ignorant.

We’ll discuss anything related to climate science, but it’s not a meaningful discussion if we can’t talk about one paper at a time. If you don’t know which paper supports your case and you can’t name and explain a single paper that supports your belief, then you are free to ask us polite questions.

All people, please note, I allow “insults” here if they are backed up. So please throw them carefully.

Busy as he is, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi is a very accommodating scientist. I invite you to directly put your case to him explaining your theories as to why he is wrong. I also urge you to ask him whether any other top scientists agree with his work.

I assume you read Jo’s comments at 175? So., what paper do you want to discuss out of the long list you tried to impress us with?

Think about it, Spatch, you will actually attempt to make a logical argument instead of your usual cut and paste. Maybe it would help if you thought of yourself as a tiny little bird leaving the nest. Come on Spatch, spread your tiny little wings and fly away!

The answer: Thanks to the Climategate scandal, we now know that the corruption of Western science extends far beyond any specific field of science. It includes world leaders, the UN, the news media, funding agencies and research journals in astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, solar and space science.

Even when the Russian/USSR government was much less trustworthy than ours, their scientists and journals adhered to basic scientific principles and openly published experimental observations that directly falsified the obsolete SSM (Standard Solar Model):

A climate sensitivity of zero is completely incompatible with historical temperature variations, as it would imply an unchanging climate in direct contrast to historically recorded temperatures changes on all timescales.

yes a zero climate sensitivity is incomparable but a negative climate sensitivity is not

Note that the EPA, under Bush, had advertised: EPA has no plans to regulate CO2 in any manner because the EPA is not structured to regulate anything that EPA cannot measure

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper came out in 2006 and was published in an obscure journal. Since then it has been shown to have serious flaws. The paper is a complete flop. It has had zero effect on climate science.

The EPA states that Ferenc Miskolczi has a lack of understanding of feedback mechanisms in the climate.

(While you point a finger at Eddy.Three more point right back at you.You have been a TROLL.Who has been corrected several times now.You appear to be a hypocrite in complaining about Eddy.Then Jo herself admonishes you to improve your postings.It does not look pretty at this stage.) CTS

You’re a mere TROLL who gets his kicks from Cyber-Harrassment.
I will no longer feed the TROLL.

Translation: Hi, my name is Spatch and I say that I can give as good as I get but when push comes to shove I can dish it out but I can’t take it. I cry like a little girl. I am incapable of creating an independent thought so I cut and paste and plagiarize. When someone calls me out on my baby, bubble gum BS I cry “cyber bully” and hope others will feel sorry for me.

I post lists of references from Wikipedia that I have never read and hope that it will impress people. I lie and say that I have read these papers so people will think that I am intelligent and well versed on the subject. I get really scared when people who post here want to discuss any of these papers that I never read because then I will be exposed for the phony fraudster that I am.

I can’t answer any tough questions that are put to me so I make flippant remarks like “I play by my own rules” or else I pretend to take the moral high ground. I am a hypocrite and a cyber wimp!

Did I miss something there, DiSpatched? As you would say “choke on that”!

The term derives from “trolling”, a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.

Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.

How can troll posts be recognised?

No Imagination – Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses’ groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.
Pedantic in the Extreme – Many trolls’ preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail – the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.
False Identity – Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!
Crossposting – Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?
Off-topic posting – Often genuine errors, but, if from an ‘outsider’ they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it’s a troll post, you have denied it its reward.
Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll – or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.
Missing The Point – Trolls rarely answer a direct question – they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle – so they develop a fine line in missing the point.
Thick or Sad – Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web there must be an Intelligence Test for Trolls – rigged to always say “above 150″

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper came out in 2006 and was published in an obscure journal. Since then it has been shown to have serious flaws. The paper is a complete flop. It has had zero effect on climate science.

Wish Granted!

Support of the highest calibre for Miskolczi comes in the person of Hans Jelbring, who is rare among AGW critics in having a Ph.D in Climatology.

I doubt that ALL Western science is “corrupt.” However, recent experiences document a surprisingly high level of distortion in Western astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, solar and space sciences

I. The Galileo probe entered Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1995 and observed excess Xe-136 there, as had been predicted in a controversial paper ["Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)]: http://tinyurl.com/224kz4

Although the Galileo Mission cost the US taxpayers ~$1,000,000,000, the experimental data were not made available until 1998. Then the data were released in response to a request directed to NASA Administrator (Dr. Dan Goldin) when he was being interviewed by C-SPAN.

II. By the time of the 32nd Annual Lunar Science Conference in March 2001, other experimental measurements had falsified these mainstream models of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, nuclear, solar and space sciences:

a) Formation of the Solar System from an interstellar cloud,
b) The Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled sun, and
c.) H-fusion as the source of solar energy.

It is intriguing that Physical Review Letters received a manuscript three months later, on 18 June 2001 that “revived” the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled sun.

PRL published the manuscript by one hundred and seventy-eight (178) coauthors 25 July 2001, “Measurement of the Rate of νe+d→p+p+e- Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory” [Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 071301 (2001)]: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i7/e071301

Science news reports claimed that the above measurements solved the solar neutrino puzzle and verified the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled sun.

I doubt that solar neutrino oscillate, but it will be as difficult for government research agencies to admit that mistake as it will be for them to admit that CO2 did not induce global warming!

Again, JoNova, I appreciate your asking if the Western climate establishment is corrupt. It appears
that the unholy alliance of politicians and scientists benefitted them both, at great expense to the taxpayers and the free society.

Thanks to the Climategate scandal, the next generation may break free of the tyranny of government science.

OK, are you lost? This is the skeptical site Jo Nova. It is not your favorite place to “hang”. You post here as a GUEST not as “you see fit”! Further, you cannot call a regular here a troll. YOU are the TROLL

Start answering questions or you’ll look more the stupid ignorant part. No troll gets to post only what they want for very long.

I have got DiSpatched cornered and (SNIP) CTS. The guy truly is a greased weasel. When it comes to Trolls like DiSpatched, I sort of see myself as the site sanitation engineer. Somebody has got to take out the garbage!

I don’t think Spatch would become so angry if he realized that the objective of people around here was to prevent the perpetuation of falsehood that causes harm.

Also, Spatch, you have to state your objections to physical reasoning in your own words, and make it simple so that people can understand what you’re talking about. If you simply throw what you think are “relevant” references to support your objections or your reasoning, you aren’t going to convince anybody of anything because people might assume you don’t understand what it is you are talking about

In your case, I think you have decided to support a cause without having thought (the physical basis of it) through; don’t accept authority, use your own powers of reasoning

Brian H @50 – Regulated research
The article you refer to, alleging corruption in medical research, talks about peer-reviewed, not regulated medical research, so it amplifies my point that peer-review is inadequate safeguard for climate science driving public policy.

In fact a joint investigation by the BMJ and a “Bureau of Investigative Journalism” recently exposed serious medical conflicts of interest in peers forming global policy: “Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing.” Link Here. For the BMJ to publish this is big! This is potentially a global scandal parallel to Climate Change. But wait, who the hell are these “Bureau of Investigative Journalism” SWAT team – and where have they been for the past 20 years when it comes to Climate Science?

What I was saying is that once you start development & trials for actual medical products – drugs or devices, you have to go though the regulators like the FDA, and you’d better have you house in order, cause the FDA enforcers carry guns in the US. Would it not be a joy to have these guys pay a visit to CRU? “Do you feel lucky Phill, do you?” (OK, this is parody folks, I don’t think they are allowed to shoot me if I loose my data). Disclaimer – I admit I have never met an FDA auditor wearing a gun, but when they audit me here in Australia they always delight in scaring me with this. But I digress….

Of course there is still a mountain of knowledge that comes straight out of theoretical research directly to medical practice or even public policy – such as surgical techniques, treatment choice and yes – vaccination programs like above – that’s where fads and conflicts arise and bodies such as the US Vet Affairs sometimes make independent trials, or the Cochrane database aims to get evidence-based medicine.

My point is that without regulation, medicine would still be selling snake oil and charms to the gullible, which exactly where the Climate Industry is at present.

PS: I exclude the plethora of mostly voluntary standards and audits available for ‘verifying’ unwarranted decarbonization of industry.

Yes. I have foolishly used this fact to justify personal attacks and to focus years of repressed anger and frustration on pitiable science editors, leaders of the scientific community, and their well-funded consensus science followers.

I suggest, JoNova, that we start over and consider the following answer and possible solutions:

1. The Answer:“Yes, a large portion of the the Western science establishment is corrupt. In fact, the problem is one that threatens our science and our form of government.”

I’m late to the party here, and don’t know a better place to post this, so I am posting here.

I am reading a thoroughly researched paper by the late Ernst-Georg Beck that provides documented evidence that much higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been measured reliably by many researchers over the past 180 years. In particular, a peak of about 470 ppm in about 1827 was equalled about 1942.

Thanks to a reader I now have a copy of Ernst-Georg Beck’s paper 180 Years accurate CO2 Gas analysis of Air by Chemical Methods (Short version) which argues that the IPCC reliance of Ice Core CO2 figures is wrong – It is only 10 pages long so I urge you to read it yourself and study such figures as:

So it is not cut and dried that burning fossil fuels has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by 100 parts per million, as claimed by the IPCC. So another of the links in the chain is a little weaker than first claims suggest.

Interesting paper. There is so much fraud in this area, it is discouraging trying to bring up facts. Zbigniew Jaworowski, in the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland, has been claiming that Keeling cherry-picked data from the last century to make his case and discarded perfectly good CO2 measurements that were much higher than they wanted (see here).

Many of the newly elected members of the House of Representatives in the US are committed to holding hearings on AGW. The House has the power of subpoena (you have to show up) and you have to testify, unless you claim that by so doing you will admit to a crime. It’s pretty hard to duck and weave there — and if they do, it will be just as incriminating to AGW as not being able to rationally respond to questions.

Paul, I’m glad that you have joined us. The way this blog works is that threads go “stale” because new ones are what people are reading and following. I usually subscribe to threads and so I still get e-mail notes when a new post is added (even to really old threads). Others “un-subscribe” after a while to minimize e-mail volume.

Feel free to post on this thread all you want but don’t become discouraged if less and less people reply. Keep up on new threads by looking at the Nova home page as Jo adds new topics almost daily.

I’d like to encourage Jo to open an “open thread” where we could have more exchanges and discussions about some of the material out there. I think such exchanges are very helpful.

Please allow me to quote from a message that I received today from John O’Sullivan:

“I can also report that within 2 weeks time our book, Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, written by some of the world’s leading climate experts, . . . exposes the fraudulent equations NASA built into the calculations world governments use to assess climate.”

My chapter in the book, “Deep Historical Roots of the Climate Scandal,” discusses four unpalatable, empirical facts** at the root of current climate scandal and traces them back in time to show that coincidence, serendipity or Fate advanced truth despite the inherent flaws of mankind.

Those are excellent papers and I’ve bookmarked them for future reference.

With the evidence against the global warming scare getting more and more attention you would think that certain people would be too embarrassed to keep up their charade. Yet they go on and on…ad nauseam…

Bob, a small bet I’m willing to make — if Gore and Hansen are called to testify before a House committee, they will stick to their guns and lie like their lives depended on it. What do you think?

Bob, a small bet I’m willing to make — if Gore and Hansen are called to testify before a House committee, they will stick to their guns and lie like their lives depended on it. What do you think?

Roy

I think you’re right Roy. However, I expect the House experts to leave them looking like morons. They won’t be able to get out by bluster and bluff — they’ll have to answer specific questions.

I would bet that the Left will be screaming “McCarthism!” at the top of their lungs. Just point out to them that the US government wasn’t paying the people who had to testify before the HUAC billions of dollars. At least we should be able to get a little actual accounting for our money.

“At least we should be able to get a little actual accounting for our money.”

Literally billions of dollars in public funds were spent to obtain the best available data from the Apollo Mission to the Moon, the Galileo Mission to Jupiter, precise nuclear rest mass data on all 3,000 types of atoms, and numerous spacecraft observations on the Sun, only to have the results hidden, manipulated or distorted that would have given the public the best available information on:

Eisenhower warned of this fate for government-dominated science in his farewell address on 17 Jan 1961:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

I can now verify that the linked PDF in my earlier post is the same as the PDF that I was reading. Why the link did not work I do not know or if the link I provided was to the current source, but it matters not.

The conclusions of the paper, which is as yet unpublished as far as I know, state : –

Summary
Accurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared
to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published. From 1829 the concentration
of carbon dioxide of air in the northern hemisphere fell down from a value of e.g. 400 ppm
up to 1900 to less than 300 ppm rising till 1942 to more than 400 ppm. After that maximum
it fell down to e.g. 350 ppm and rose again till today, 2006 to 380 ppm. Accurate
measurements had been done amongst others by de Saussure 1826, Pettenkofer/v.Gilm
1857, Schulze 1864/71, Farsky 1874, Uffelmann 1886, Letts und Blake 1897, Krogh and
Haldane 1904, Benedict 1912, Lundegardh 1920, van Slyke 1929, Dürst and Kreutz 1934
alternatively 1940, Misra 1942 or Scholander 1946 with measuring instruments through
which from 1857 (Pettenkofer) an accuracy of +/-0,0006 Vol% to under +/-0,0003 Vol%
=~3 ppm (Lundegardh 1926) was achieved. These pioneers of chemistry, biology, botany,
medicine and physiology constituted the modern knowledge of metabolism, nutrition
science, biochemistry and ecology. Modern climatology ignored their work till today even
though it is the basis of all textbooks of the mentioned faculties and was honoured with
several Nobel prizes. In total over 90 000 measurements within nearly every year since 180
year gave the following results:
1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a
variing CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a
maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.
2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2-
concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the
average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338ppm.
3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known
several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in
the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420
pmm in 1942.
4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical
methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored
reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period.
5. Callendar and Keeling were the most important founders of the modern greenhouse
theory (IPCC) beside Arrhenius. Literature research confirmed that they ignored a big
part of available technical papars and selected only a few values to get a validation of
their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of CO2 in air. Furthermore these authors
discussed and reproduced the few selected historic results by chemical methods in a
faulty way and propagated an unfounded view of the quality of these methods, without
having dealt with its chemical basis.
6. To reconstruct the modern CO2 concentration of air icecores from Antarctica had been
used. The presented reconstructions are obviously not accurate enough to show the
several variations of carbon dioxide in northern hemisphere.

I have copied and pasted this quote because it is of such importance to this debate. Once people see just how much cherry-picking is needed in order to arrive at the ‘pre-industrial’ level of atmospheric carbon dioxide the assumption of 280ppm by all the GCM models used by the IPCC is clearly seen as falsified, along with all the supposedly sophisticated calculations of future warming, etc.

The bottom line is : pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were higher than current levels and there is no monotonic increase due to the use of fossil fuels. The ‘Siple curve’ gives a totally false view of the progression of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past

PS : I also would like to see a permanent thread discussing the actual science. Posting on comments to the ‘current’ offers a moving target that is not conducive to better understanding the actual science involved. IMHO.

Paul

[Paul, your link that didn't work was copied from the text:http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_yea...cal_Methods.pdf
Notice the dots "yea...cal" that was not an actual link. Instead it is better to highlight the link you want to copy and select "copy link location" Rather than just copy. Sometimes the actual link is hidden under the text. If you use "copy" you only get the text. Anything posted here that begins with http://xxx will LOOK like a link but may not really be a link. It is also a good practice to use the "preview" function button as you can then test your links before final posting.
I was able to find the link and repair it for you] ED

I think you’re right Roy. However, I expect the House experts to leave them looking like morons. They won’t be able to get out by bluster and bluff — they’ll have to answer specific questions.

I sure do hope they end up looking like morons. But they’ll each get the chance to make an opening statement and I can’t see how they have much choice but to stick to their story. And if they duck the chance to make their case known up front they’ll look as bad as if they take the fifth.

By Harro A.J. Meijer, Centrum voor IsotopenOnderzoek, University of Groningen, the Netherlands

Beck has re-interpreted various 19th and early 20th century chemical CO2 measurements, and derived very far-reaching conclusions. His work, however, contains major flaws, such that the conclusions are completely wrong, as they are based on poor understanding of the atmosphere.

The concentration of CO2 as measured close to the earth’s surface is fully governed by atmospheric mixing, and lack thereof. The two main effects are:
(1) The general build-up of an inversion layer during the night, causing the lowest parts of the atmosphere (some nights lower than 100 meters) to be isolated from the large free troposphere. The normal nocturnal production of CO2 by soil and vegetation mixes only into this small layer, and this leads to highly elevated concentrations of CO2. During the day, the contact between the lower layer and the free troposphere is gradually restored, causing the CO2 concentration to sink towards the free troposphere background concentration. The lowest concentrations of CO2 are generally reached in the local afternoon, when the mixing between lower layer and free troposphere is near to completion. Yet, close to ground level, a distinct difference in concentration will remain, its size depending on weather conditions. At an elevation of only 2 meters, one will never observe background concentration (unless in vast, completely source/sink free areas such as deserts or polar ice caps), but at higher elevations (say >40 meters) one can get close. Still, also at those elevations, one measures a CO2 concentration signal that is far from “Mauna Loa-like”. If one uses the daily period between 2- 4 PM, however, one gets a reasonable average CO2 concentration and seasonal cycle. At much lower elevations, such as all the measurements used in the article, however, this is doomed to fail.
(2) The difference in atmospheric behaviour in summer and winter. Generally, the process of nocturnal inversion and lack of daily mixing is stronger in winter than in summer. This is the reason why CO2 take-up through photosynthesis is much harder to observe than CO2 production through organic material decay and respiration: During the day in summer the atmosphere tends to be well-mixed, and the CO2 loss to photo-synthesis is diluted in the total atmosphere, whereas during night in winter the decay and respiration only mix into a thin layer of atmosphere and are thus clearly visible as considerable increase of the CO2 concentration.
The effects are respectively called the “diurnal” and the “seasonal” rectifier in the literature. Like a diode, namely, they rectify the observation of the CO2 flux: Sources are well visible, but sinks are much harder to observe. “Simple” pictures like figure 1 in Beck’s paper are therefore misleading: In reality the source and sinks effects indicated there are not well visible in the atmosphere, since they are obscured by the variability of the mixing processes.
The characteristics above are common knowledge among the scientists monitoring and modelling atmospheric CO2. Apparently, however, it is totally unknown to the author and his supporting group. (Compare for example the clear example of the diurnal rectifier in figure 8 with the author’s comment in the caption).
I suspect they never studied modern real-time continental CO2 registrations. This is a pity, because only a short look at measurements at different altitudes from continental towers such as the Wisconsin tower (NOAA, available on-line), the Hungarian Hegyhatsal tower, the Dutch Cabauw and Lutjewad towers, or even the on-line registrations made by Dutch secondary schools (available, soon in completion, on http://www.rug.nl/fwn/school-CO2-net), would have shown that the measurements presented in the paper are indeed useless for the purpose the author wants to use them, certainly in the way the author interprets them. If anything, a measurement place close to the sea would be the best try (since nocturnal inversion is much weaker over water), and then selecting only those measurements between 2 pm and 4 pm with wind from the direction of the sea. However, based on the information given in the paper, it is not possible to tell if such potentially useful measurement series do exist. The necessary data to judge, namely measurement height, consecutive length of a record and especially temporal resolution, are lacking in table 2.
In the light of the above, the whole “Discussion and Conclusion” section is invalid, including figures 11-14.
In summary, the paper lacks the very basic knowledge necessary to treat atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements properly. The author even accuses the pioneers Callendar and Keeling of selective data use, errors or even something close to data manipulation, but contrary to the author, Callendar and Keeling took the above into account.
It is shocking that this paper has been able to pass the journal’s referee system. “Energy and Environment” apparently has been unable to organise a proper peer review process for this paper, thereby discrediting the journal.

That was a good copy and paste you made. So much for original thought.

By the way, the web site you quote, realclimate.org, has no scientific credibility being nothing less than an advocacy site for CAGW. If you choose to base your beliefs on that source I am sure that you will never understand the real climate, though you will be able to maintain your beliefs, unassailed by reason or contrary data, for the immediate future. That is their mission – to keep the masses from giving credence to anything that might upset their faith in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. The cloak of apparent ‘science’ is just to keep you from suspecting their ulterior motive.

In all, I find the ‘refutation’ to be nothing less than an ad hominem. Why, when looking back at the speculations of someone like Arrhenius, is he almost made a god of, but when someone researches the work of many investigators who went to elaborate measures to take thousands of accurate measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide he and they are derided as knowing nothing about what they undertook? The answer is that they did not ascribe to the ‘Nobel Cause’ of saving the environment from humanity and that was their fatal mistake.

Perhaps you can tell me why measurements at Mauna Loa, near a volcano which is emitting CO2 continuously and near the equatorial oceans which also are outgassing CO2, are so reliable a measure of human contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide?

Perhaps you would also like to comment on the assumption of CO2 being ‘well mixed’ in the atmosphere? Is this a valid assumption or not?

Yes, Mark, the above information should be part of a congressional investigation.

The climate scandal exposed a serious threat to the foundation of our free society: The very threat that former President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address on 17 Jan 1961:

1. First Eisenhower warned about the threat to a free society from an Industrial Military Complex.

2. Next he warned “that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

Oliver, you and I are in agreement. Eisenhower was my fathers peer. I came into politics as a Nixon fan in the early 70′s. My dad is a WW2 veteran. I am willing to help with any effort you have in mind.